 
     |
| Carbon dioxide hysteria (Page 49/170) |
|
rinselberg
|
APR 16, 03:52 PM
|
|
Picking up where the last page of this thread left off, with the Electric Viking and his report on the new EV drivetrain technology from Volkswagen...
"One of the biggest [EV] battery recycling plants in the US is up and running"
| quote | | Ascend Elements’ new recycling plant in Covington, Georgia is processing used lithium-ion batteries and manufacturing scrap into useful materials for the clean energy transition. |
|
It's not the only battery recycling venture that's scaling up for the EV "revolution"
| quote | Other emerging recycling startups are at it too. Redwood Materials, founded by Tesla co-founder JB Straubel, won a $2 billion conditional loan from the DOE for a Nevada plant to make new batteries from recycled materials. Canada-based Li-Cycle received a $375 million conditional DOE loan for its own facility to process lithium carbonate from a network of recycling plants. Canary Media recently profiled Cirba Solutions’ efforts to expand a battery-recycling plant in Ohio.
All of these facilities tie into the Biden administration’s goal to make the U.S. more capable of supplying itself with the batteries that will be pivotal to electrifying transportation and decarbonizing the grid. |
|
Immerse yourself in the white noise of net zero carbonality with this brief report from Canary Media.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-16-2023).]
|
|
|
cliffw
|
APR 19, 11:21 AM
|
|
I owe you a debt of gratitude rinseberg. Thank you for the never ending opportunities to ridicule the stupidity of GloBull Warming.
I also owe you an apology. I am sorry I destroyed your hopes of being the Salesman Of The Year for GloBull Warming. My guilt is soothed by the fact that you will get a trophy anyway.
Will I get a participation trophy along with my "winner" trophy ?
Do you know why you are not even in the running for being the Salesman Of The Year for GloBull Warming ? Glaringly obvious is the fact that you can not, or will not, answer questions about GloBull Warming which exposes the stupidity of it. All you do is plagiarize the opinions of others which you think will make you look right. Never a thought of your own other than you are ate up with delusion. You need to stop listening to the voices in your head.
Now, to your last reply. Sad, sad, sad,  .
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Redwood Materials, founded by Tesla co-founder JB Straubel, won a $2 billion conditional loan from the DOE for a Nevada plant to make new batteries from recycled materials. Canada-based Li-Cycle received a $375 million conditional DOE loan for its own facility to process lithium carbonate from a network of recycling plants. |
|
What is that supposed to do for us ? Impress us ? Can you not even follow money. Who is the DOE and who do they work for ?
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
If you assign the number "1" to carbon dioxide for its greenhouse effect, on the basis of a single molecule, methane is a "25", which means that a single methane molecule has 25 times more "greenhouse" than a single carbon dioxide molecule.
The reason that carbon dioxide is so important, compared to these other greenhouse gases, is its abundance in the atmosphere; its persistence in the atmosphere; and the fact that humans cause many times more carbon dioxide emissions, on a per molecule basis, than any of the other greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere from human activities and processes.
|
|
BullZhit.
There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and graphs.
| quote | Originally posted by Patrick:
I honestly don't know why rinselberg wastes his time trying to educate some of you guys. |
|
It is a mystery to us too. I can't believe he hasn't figured out we don't give a damn damn about the claim of the Gawds that the Earth is doomed if the temperature of the atmosphere goes up two degrees 100 years from now. If it even happens. Not one of the \Greenies predictions have come true. Not one. I can't believe he hasn't figured out we don't live in mortal fear as he does. Perhaps he hasn't figured out we can see through the BullZhit and see the scam.
Does he really think we can be assimilated by the Gawds through his preaching ? When he won't even answer many question and has no counter to logic presented to him ?
rinselberg, did you know China is adding two new coal plants every week ? You never responded to my question asking if you knew all the cars in the world, combined, only account for 15% of CO2 emissions.
Do you remember Prohibition ? Did you know one can distill their own gas, just like alcohol was distilled during Prohibition ?
The EPA today is to answer Congressional questions. Expected are a barrage of questions about the legality of forcing Americans to buy something they don't want.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
APR 19, 01:32 PM
|
|
A few days ago I posted report(s) about how rapidly sea level has been rising in recent years along the Gulf Coast.
The "cliffw" expressed skepticism about the idea that sea levels in the Gulf of Mexico could be rising more rapidly than in the other oceans around the world, and (reading into his comments) that sea levels in some areas around the world could be higher than what other coastlines in different parts of the world are seeing.
It's because the water in the world's oceans is never in equilibrium as you move from one ocean to another, or from one area within an ocean to another area of that ocean.
There are differences in the climate zone determined by latitude (tropical, temperate or polar), wind patterns, coastal geography, the geography of the seafloor, and the geography and characteristics of the rivers that are feeding into the ocean as you move from ocean to ocean, or from one part of an ocean to another.
These differences drive the differences in ocean currents, and the differences in the salinity and the heat content of seawater (as registered by temperature readings) from one ocean to another, and from one part of an ocean to another.
According to these reports that I posted, the waters in the Gulf of Mexico have been warming all the way from the seabed up to the surface, and that contributes to sea level rise in the Gulf of Mexico because of the thermal expansion of seawater as it gets warmer. The warmer the seawater, the more volume it expands to, and that, along with the increasing mass of the water in the oceans (from melting glaciers and continental ice packs) contributes to sea level rise
So it is perfectly scientific that sea levels in the Gulf of Mexico are higher and are rising more rapidly, compared to other oceans around the world... the difference in sea levels, for example, between what is seen by Florida's Gulf Coast vs Florida's Atlantic Coast.
|
|
|
cliffw
|
APR 19, 06:25 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
A few days ago I posted report(s) about how rapidly sea level has been rising in recent years along the Gulf Coast.
The "cliffw" expressed skepticism about the idea that sea levels in the Gulf of Mexico could be rising more rapidly than in the other oceans around the world, and (reading into his comments) that sea levels in some areas around the world could be higher than what other coastlines in different parts of the world are seeing.
It's because the water in the world's oceans is never in equilibrium as you move from one ocean to another, or from one area within an ocean to another area of that ocean.
There are differences in the climate zone determined by latitude (tropical, temperate or polar), wind patterns, coastal geography, the geography of the seafloor, and the geography and characteristics of the rivers that are feeding into the ocean as you move from ocean to ocean, or from one part of an ocean to another.
These differences drive the differences in ocean currents, and the differences in the salinity and the heat content of seawater (as registered by temperature readings) from one ocean to another, and from one part of an ocean to another.
According to these reports that I posted, the waters in the Gulf of Mexico have been warming all the way from the seabed up to the surface, and that contributes to sea level rise in the Gulf of Mexico because of the thermal expansion of seawater as it gets warmer. The warmer the seawater, the more volume it expands to, and that, along with the increasing mass of the water in the oceans (from melting glaciers and continental ice packs) contributes to sea level rise
So it is perfectly scientific that sea levels in the Gulf of Mexico are higher and are rising more rapidly, compared to other oceans around the world... the difference in sea levels, for example, between what is seen by Florida's Gulf Coast vs Florida's Atlantic Coast. |
|
Do you really think that malarky can weasel you into being right ? Even if logic is laughing in your face ?
Are you a denier of the Law Of Physics ? Do you know why sea level is a world wide phenomenon ? Do you know what the specific gravity of sea water is ? You claim that temperatures expand water, which explains sea level rise. Are you also claiming sea water will not expand sideways ?
There is so much illogic in your post. I could go on but you will not address my thoughts or defend yours.
|
|
|
|
Wichita
|
APR 20, 06:16 AM
|
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
APR 20, 08:00 AM
|
|
When you have no coherent thoughts to add to a discussion, just blurt out "Greta Thunberg". Because it's a mindless fixation with the social media crowd that you hang out with (too much) online.
From the same poorly informed social media crowd that was collectively deceived by this sneaky little "whopper" ...
"Nice..!"[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-20-2023).]
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
APR 20, 10:19 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
just blurt out "Greta Thunberg"
|
|
GRETA THUNBERG! GRETA THUNBERG! GRETA THUNBERG!
Now tell me...which image is more truthful?
Follow the science!
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
APR 20, 12:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
APR 20, 12:40 PM
|
|
Rinse... this chart only goes to 1990, and even using 1970s through now statistics are silly. The earth is millions of years old (or older). 40 years isn't even a fart in the wind for the life of the planet.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
APR 20, 01:35 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Rinse... this chart only goes to 1990, and even using 1970s through now statistics are silly. The earth is millions of years old (or older). 40 years isn't even a fart in the wind for the life of the planet. |
|
I disagree. When scientists compare the current climate and climate trends to previous periods in the earth's history, they are careful not to go back so far into the past that they would be "comparing apples to oranges". The general composition of the atmosphere, the outlines of the oceans and continents, the frequency and scale of volcanic eruptions... many relevant factors have changed (radically) or even recurred after radical departures during the roughly 4.5 billion years of the planet's history.
No one expects that the climate is going to stay closely as it has been since the end of the most recent glaciation (ice age) for tens of thousands more years, but what about the next 100 to 1000 years? A 1000 years is a significant fraction of the civilization that's already behind us in recorded history.
The question is what's happening now, and the evidence has identified the "leading suspect" as the human proliferation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that has greatly expanded since the onset of the Industrial Age, roughly midway (by most reckoning) into the 1800s.
|
|
|
|
